RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/238 
17 October 2007 
 (07-4474) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
31 August 2007  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 31 August 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the Agenda
, the item concerning the Panel Report on:  "Japan – 
Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Me mories from Korea" was removed from the 
proposed Agenda following Japan's d ecision to appeal the Report.  
 
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................5  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the 
United States .................................................................................................................. .............5  
(d) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States .........................................................................6  
2. Mexico – Anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala ..........................7  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.................................................................7  
3. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................8  
(a) Statements by Canada, the Eur opean Communiti es and Japan...................................................8  
4. United States – Anti-dumping measure on shrimp from Ecuador.....................................10  
(a) Statement by the United States ................................................................................................. 10 
5. United States – Sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular 
goods from Argentina........................................................................................................... ..11 
(a) Statement by the United States ................................................................................................. 11 
6. United States – Anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) 
from Mexico.................................................................................................................... .........11  
(a) Statement by the United States ................................................................................................. 11 WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 2  
 
  7.
 China – Certain measures granting ref unds, reductions or exemptions from 
taxes and other payments....................................................................................................... 12 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................12  
(b) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico ................................................................12  
8. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights ................................................................................................................ ........13  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................13  
9. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................14  
10. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................14  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .14 
 
 1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.57) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on cer tain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.57) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.32) 
 (d) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.6) 
 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the four sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.57) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.57, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 20 August 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the status 
report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current Congress, in both the US Senate and the US 
House of Representatives.  The US administration continued to work with the US Congress to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that on 21 June 2007, new bills that 
would, inter alia , repeal Section 211 had been introduced in  the US Congress.  These bills were  WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 3 
 
 
  bipartisan and had already received support from 55 co-sponsors.  They added to other bills 
introduced previously that would also repeal Section 211 and had already been supported by 61 co-sponsors.  The EC hoped that the introduction of these bills had demonstrated a renewed and genuine 
interest of the United States to finally bring itsel f into compliance with its TRIPS obligations.  The 
United States might deny it, but the fact remained that the authority of the TRIPS Agreement and the 
credibility of actions to enforce it necessarily suffere d when one of its main promoters appeared as 
simply ignoring its obligations under the Agreement.  In the interest of all, the EC urged again the 
United States to comply with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 said that the United States provided the most flagrant example of 
non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, not only in relation to Section 211, but 
also in relation to other disputes under this agenda ite m.  For more than five years, the United States 
had confined itself to the formality of submitting re ports that did not differ in content and made no 
contribution to resolving the dispute.  The US attitude was one of disrespect for the rights of other Members and established a negative precedent fo r the functioning of the dispute settlement 
mechanism.  The United States was not exempt fr om the obligation to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  Members were, theref ore, faced with a unilateral decision which 
defied the authority of the DSU and called into quest ion its legal force.  Given such an attitude, one 
wondered how implementation of the results of the current round of negotiations was to be 
guaranteed.  The obligation to comply with th e DSB's recommendation or ruling had the same 
character and legal force as compliance with a market access commitment or a commitment under 
certain disciplines in any of the current areas of ne gotiation.  Section 211 was not only inconsistent 
with the principles and rules governing the WTO,  but it also disregarded other international 
commitments undertaken by the United States in the area of intellectual property and international 
law. 
6. Section 211, which had been in force since 1999, was clearly intended to violate the 
intellectual property rights of Cuban right-holders.  This was shown by the refusal of the US Patent 
and Trademark Office to renew registration of th e recognized Havana Club trademark for Cuban rum 
in 2006.  Before this provision had been approv ed, Cuba and the United States had practised mutual 
recognition of the rights of natural and legal persons in the area of tr ademark law.  It should be noted 
that Cuba continued to offer protection, in accordan ce with national and international legislation, for 
the marks of US applicants, which demonstrated its respect for established norms.  According to 
Article 21 of the DSU, prompt compliance with reco mmendations or rulings was essential in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  The attitude of the United States 
demonstrated a total lack of political will to meet  its obligations.  More than enough time had elapsed 
for the United States to bring its legislation into conformity with WTO rules.  Cuba, once again, 
reiterated its concern at the ongoing irregularities in this case, which compromised the dispute 
settlement mechanism.  This mech anism was one of the cornerstones of international trade law and  
any violation affected the credibility of the system.  Cuba urged the DSB to find an effective solution 
to enforce the letter of the DSU by calling on the United States to respect the principle of prompt 
compliance with the DSB's decisions in this disp ute.  Cuba demanded the total, immediate and 
unconditional repeal by the United States of the illegal and discriminatory Section 211. 
7. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that his country thanked 
Cuba for its statement, which it fully endorsed, and noted the status report submitted by the 
United States.  Members were, once again gathered to listen to a reiterated status report in the dispute 
in question, which had been submitted by the United St ates.  As his country had already stated, the US 
report did not give the impression that there would be a quick resolution of this matter.  As his 
delegation had explained in its previous statement, his country hoped that Members would not have to 
wait for DSU reforms in order to put a stop to this continued violation of the TRIPS Agreement and of 
the provision of Article 21.1 of the DSU.  As a Memb er with a systemic interest in the dispute at 
issue, Venezuela drew attention to the implicati ons for the DSB, for Members generally, and for the WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 4  
 
  multilateral trading system in particular, of the c ontinued indifference of the United States towards its 
WTO obligations.  Accordingly, his country, once again, urged the United States to fulfil its promise to comply with the DSB's recommendations, and to put an end to this and to all the disputes that it had 
pending in this area. 
8. The representative of India
 said that her country, while thanking the United States for the 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting, wished to renew its systemic concerns 
about the situation on non-compliance in this disput e.  Though the DSB had adopted the Panel and the 
Appellate Body Reports more than five years ago,  no implementing action ha d been taken nor could 
WTO Members discern any clear sign from the US statements that such an action could be envisaged in the near future.  As mentioned on previous occasions, a protracted non-compliance situation by 
WTO Members clearly undermined the credibility of the system and the caref ully negotiated balance 
of rights and obligations of the entire Membership.  
9. The representative of China
 said that, due to its systemic interest, his country once again 
wished to express its concerns with regard to this  protracted implementation process.  China thanked 
the United States for its status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  However, as 
other delegations had stated, five years had passed  and the implementation in this case was still under 
discussion in the DSB.  It was very regrettable that there was no indication when this matter would hopefully be resolved.  The DSU, more than once,  reiterated the importance of prompt and full 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations, which was essential to ensure the effective resolution of disputes and the authorit y of the DSB.  Although China was conscious of 
possible difficulties involved in the process of im plementation, which was common for everyone, the 
undue delay of full implementation of the DSB's ru lings inevitably caused systemic concerns about 
the integrity and efficiency of the dispute settle ment system.  Therefore, China again urged the 
United States to double its effort to fully implem ent the decision of the DSB pertaining to this case. 
10. The representative of Thailand
 said that her country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  Thailand wished to join previous 
speakers in expressing its concern over systemic impli cations of this dispute.  Non-implementation of 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations undermined th e multilateral trading system.  Thailand called 
on the United States to take the necessary and urgent  steps to comply with its obligation under the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
11. The representative of Bolivia  said that Members, once again, had heard a report by the 
United States and were, once again, concerned that  no progress had been achieved in compliance with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings to remove  restrictions under Section 211 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act.  Bolivia was concerned that th is lack of compliance with WTO rules – which had 
been designed to provide Members with certainty – undermined the credibility of the WTO.  As her 
delegation had stated on previous occasions, this non-compliance, which had been going on for more 
than five years, led her government and the civil so ciety to question the functioning of the multilateral 
trading system and the system of protecting intell ectual property rights.  Once again, Bolivia wished 
to join other delegations in urging the United Stat es to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute.   
12. The representative of the United States  said that the EC's comments about the US 
commitment to intellectual property rights and to  compliance with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB were as unwarranted and unfounded at the present meeting as they had been at previous 
DSB meetings.  For further details, he wished to refer the EC, its member States, and other 
delegations to the statement made by the United States on 26 October 2006.  In response to the suggestion that the US compliance record was poor, the facts simply did not support that assertion.  Indeed, the record showed that the United States had fully complied in the vast majority of its 
disputes.  As for the remaining few, the United St ates was actively working towards compliance.  The  WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 5 
 
 
  very agenda of the present meeting should have pr ovided a great deal of comfort to those Members 
expressing systemic concerns regarding the credibility  of the dispute settlement system.  Indeed, the 
United States would, in the course of the meeti ng, be announcing that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in no less than four disputes. 
13. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.57) 
14. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.57, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
15. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 20 August 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, the US authorities had addresse d the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty 
investigation at issue in this dispute.  Details  were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The 
US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings that had not already been addressed by the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
16. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement.  Japan also acknowledged that in November 2002 the United States had taken certain measures to implement the part of the DSB's recommendations, as reported by the 
United States.  However, the fact remained that more than six years had passed since the DSB had 
adopted its recommendations and rulin gs regarding this dispute, but the United States continued to 
report on the status of the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ruling.  As Japan had 
repeatedly stated before the DSB, a full and pr ompt implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings was essential for maintaining the credibili ty of the WTO dispute settlement system.  Japan 
took note of the US statement along with the latest status report in which the United States had stated 
that the US administration was working with the new US Congress to pass specific legislative amendments that would implement the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings.  Japan would like to 
renew its strong hope that the US administration would accelerate its efforts to work with the US Congress in order to come to full compliance without further delay. 
17. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.32) 
18. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.32, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
19. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 20 August 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would work closely with the US Congress and continue d to confer with the EC, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In this regard, the United States appreciated the EC's 
statement made at the 24 July 2007 meeting that it re mained prepared to work with the United States WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 6  
 
  to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to this di spute.  The United States shared the EC's goal of 
discussing how such a solution could be achieved. 
20. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC's position regarding this 
dispute was well known and did not re quire repetition.  This dispute ha d gone on for too long without 
any concrete action to ensure compliance, and th e EC would like to see some action soon.  The EC 
remained prepared to work with the United States to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to this 
dispute and hoped that a solution could be identified in the near future. 
21. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.6) 
22. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 20/Add.6, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
23. The representative of the United States  said that his country was pleased to announce, at the 
present meeting, that it had brought its measures into compliance in this dispute.  The United States 
provided its last status report in this dispute on 24 July 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the 
DSU.  As stated in that report and previously , the Department of Co mmerce had been working 
towards completion of one last determination in an  investigation.  The Department of Commerce had 
completed that determination, and the margins had been recalculated by providing an offset for non-
dumped comparisons. 
24. The representative of the European Communities  said that, on 9 July 2007, the EC had 
requested consultations with the United States on th e measures allegedly taken to comply with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute.  The consultations had been held on 30 July.  
Without prejudice to its ongoing implementation action,  the EC would like to raise important points at 
the present meeting.  First, the EC had challenge d 16 administrative (or "assessment") reviews in the 
DS294 case.  In each review, the United States' use of zeroing had been found to be in breach of its 
WTO obligations.  The last paragraph of its status  report stated:  "With respect to the assessment 
reviews at issue in this dispute, in each case th e results were superseded by subsequent reviews.  
Because of this, no further action is necessary for the United States to bring the challenged measures into compliance with the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB."  Without prejudice as to whether 
the alleged superseding of the challenged reviews was a relevant matter, the US statement was not 
correct.  In at least one case, Ball bearings from the UK, an exporter, NSK UK, was still subject to the 
rate of dumping duty (16.87 per cent) from the re view which had been challenged by the EC.  
Without zeroing, this duty should be 0 per cent.  Ye t the United States had refused to comply with its 
obligations and to change the duty rate.  This was not merely an academic issue.  By 27 September, 
the company would have to decide whether to live w ith 16.87 per cent or to spend lots of money on a 
new administrative review.  But it should not have to  request such a review.  Its duty should be 0 per 
cent.  The United States still had time to change its approach to this case, and the EC urged it to do so. 
25. Second, the EC had noted that, on 21 August 200 7, the United States had finally published the 
results of its Section 129 determination in the inv estigation concerning "Certain Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from Italy".  The United States had found that the exporter concerned, AST, was 
dumping at 2.11 per cent.  The EC had assumed that, after removing zeroing, the duty would be de 
minimis  and the measure revoked.  The EC now rea lised that the United States, while removing 
zeroing, had kept the duty above 2 per cent by failin g to correct a blatant arithmetic error committed 
during its original investigation.  Without bein g too technical, it involved getting the numerator and  WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 7 
 
 
  denominator of a fraction the wrong way round.  The EC urged the United States to do the sensible 
thing and revisit this calculation immediately.  As the EC had stated more than once in the DSB, it 
was unhappy about many other aspects of the allege d implementation by the United States in this 
case.   
26. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation wished to provide some 
comments with respect to the EC's comments regardi ng an alleged clerical error.  The US work to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs concerned not providing offsets for non-dumped 
comparisons, or "zeroing".  The alleged clerical error did not concern zeroing – it pertained to a 
different aspect of the original investigation that had been completed over eight years ago and was not 
in any way connected to the recommendations and ruli ngs of the DSB.  Theref ore, the Department of 
Commerce had concluded that the issue was not appr opriate for consideration as part of a proceeding 
whose sole purpose under US law was to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  When a Member undertook to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, it did not mean that any interested party was able to re-argue every aspect of an initial proceeding.  As his delegation 
had stated, the United States considered that it ha d brought its measures into compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
27. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the United States was only keeping 
the duty above 2 per cent, and thereby avoiding the revocation of the measure, by turning a blind eye to an obvious calculation mistake, the existence of which it did not deny itself. 
28. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
2. Mexico – Anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
29. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the DS U provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall in form the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He reca lled that at its meeting on 24 July, the DSB had 
adopted the Panel Report in the case on "Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala".  The 30-day period in this case ha d expired on 23 August and on that date Mexico 
had informed the DSB in writing of its intentions  in respect of implementation.  The relevant 
communication was contained in document WT/DS331/6.  He invited the representative of Mexico to 
make a statement. 
30. The representative of Mexico
 said that, at the present meeting, his delegation wished to 
reiterate what Mexico had already indicated in its communication, which had been circulated in 
document WT/DS331/6.  In that communication, Mexi co had informed the DSB of its intentions to 
implement the recommendations in this dispute in co nformity with its WTO obligations.  Mexico was 
looking at possible ways of doing that within a reasonable period of time.  To that end, Mexico had 
initiated consultations with Guatemal a in order to reach an agreement pursuant to Article 21.3 (b) of 
the DSU.  Mexico recognized Guatemala's position a nd believed that it would soon be able to inform 
the DSB of a satisfactory conclusion of this matter. 
31. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country was awaiting with interest Mexico's 
proposal for compliance with the recommendations of  the Panel within a re asonable period of time 
and reiterated that Guatemala was ready to continue the negotiations  in order to reach a speedy and 
satisfactory conclusion to both parties. WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 8  
 
  32. The DSB took note
 of the statements, and of the information provided by Mexico regarding 
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
3. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by Canada, the European Communities and Japan 
33. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada, the European Communities and Japan and invited the respective representatives to speak. 
34. The representative of Canada  said that her country appreciated the steps the United States had 
taken towards implementing the rulings and recomme ndations in this dispute, the United States had 
only prospectively repealed the Byrd Amendment.   Anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected 
up to 30 September 2007 could still be  disbursed to US producers under the terms of this legislation.  
As such, Canada believed that the US claim – made in  its last status report from over a year ago – that 
it had "taken the actions necessary to implement th e rulings and recommendations" in this dispute was 
not accurate.  Canada, therefore, called on the United States to resume the submission of status reports 
and to repeal the Byrd Amendment. 
35. The representative of the European Communities  said that the United States was currently 
preparing for the seventh distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.  Provisional am ounts showed that on 30 April 2007, already more 
than US$279 million had been collected and could be distributed as of 1 October 2007.  This 
exceeded by more than US$100 million the provisional amount that was available last year on 30 April.  This comparison of figures gave a serious  indication that the distribution to come would 
likely be substantially higher than the distribution in  2006.  And the EC wanted to recall that this 2006 
distribution had already registered a substantial incr ease in comparison to the previous distributions.  
The EC was still waiting for a convincing explan ation as to how this reconciled with the 
United States' assertion month after month that it ha d taken all actions necessary to bring itself in 
compliance with its WTO obligations.  In fact, as long as the distributions under the CDSOA 
continued, the United States would be in breach of  Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  Therefore, th e EC wished to ask agai n the United States if and 
what steps it intended to take to stop the transf er of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its 
industry.  The EC also renewed its call on the Un ited States to abide by its clear obligation under 
Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit im plementation reports in this dispute. 
36. The representative of Japan
 said that, as stated previously, his country recognized that the 
enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that included provisions to repeal the CDSOA was an 
important step forward in the right direction.  Howe ver, contrary to what the United States had been 
claiming thus far, the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ruling had not been 
completed, because those provisions also included the transitional clause that specifically mandated 
that duties collected on imports entered prior to  1 October 2007 must be distributed to the US 
domestic industries under the CDSOA "as if [the CDSO A] had not been repealed". In fact, the US 
Customs and Border Protection had published th e fiscal year 2007 preliminary amounts available as 
of 30 April 2007 for disbursements in the amount of some US$279 million.  On 29 May 2007, the US 
authority had issued the "Notice of intent to di stribute offset for Fiscal Year 2007" pursuant to the 
CDSOA.  This notice set forth the detailed instructions and guidance for US domestic producers to claim distributions for fiscal year 2007 in accordan ce with the regulations implementing the CDSOA.  
Although a duty collected on an entry filed afte r 1 October 2007 would not be subject to the 
distribution procedures, according to previous statements made by US Customs and Border 
Protection, "the distribution process will continue until all entries made before 1 October 2007, are 
liquidated and the duties are collected" and "[b]ecause  of the statutory constraints in the assessment of  WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 9 
 
 
  anti-dumping and countervailing duties, the dist ribution process will be continued for an 
undetermined period".  These announcement and noti ces demonstrated that the CDSOA had been 
repealed only in form, but in effect it would be ope rational "for an undetermined period".  In fact, the 
US authority's preparatory work for the next round of disbursement supported the view that the United States still failed to fully implement the DS B's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
37. Under these circumstances, Japan decided to continue, as from 1 September 2007, its 
suspension of concessions and related obligati ons under the GATT 1994 on imports of certain 
products originating in the United States for another one year to induce full compliance by the United States.  As explained in Japan's communica tion, dated 23 August 2007, the products subject to 
an additional duty of 15 per cent under this suspensi on were unchanged.  Finally, Japan called for the 
United States to make further efforts to terminat e the illegal distribution under the CDSOA and fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Until the CDSOA was repealed, not just in form 
but in substance, Japan considered  that the issue of implementation must be under surveillance by the 
DSB and the United States was under obligation to provi de the DSB with a status report, pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Japan reserved all its rights under the DSU. 
38. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked Ca nada, the EC and Japan for once 
again raising this matter at the DSB meeting.  Chin a shared the view expressed by previous speakers 
that, despite the efforts of the United States up to this moment, the implementation issue had not been 
resolved in this dispute within the framework of Ar ticle 21 of the DSU.  Therefore, China wished to 
join them in urging the United States to comply fully with the DSB's rulings.  
39. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
bringing this matter to the attention of the DSB once more.  In sharing their views that the 
United States had no basis to claim full compliance,  Brazil still expected the United States to present a 
reasoned explanation as to why the mere passing into  law of a prospective, delayed repeal of the 
WTO-illegal measure would bring the United States into conformity with its obligations under the 
multilateral rules.  Meanwhile, WTO Members, and in  particular the co-complainants, should not be 
deprived of any rights under the DSU. 
40. The representative of Thailand  said that her country wished to join previous speakers in 
thanking Canada, the EC, and Japan for continuing to bring this item before the DSB.  As noted in 
previous meetings, Thailand remained disappoi nted at the United States' continued illegal 
disbursement of funds under the CDSOA.  Thailand also remained disappointed  at the Unites States' 
continued lack of status reports on its outstanding implementation in this  dispute.  Therefore, Thailand 
again urged the United States to cease its WTO-inc onsistent disbursements, to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment with immediate practical effect, and to resume providing status reports until such actions 
were taken and this matter had been fully resolved. 
41. The representative of India  said that her country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
raising this issue at the present DSB meeting once ag ain.  India shared their concerns.  India also 
supported their request that the United States explai n how full compliance had been achieved in this 
case.  As mentioned previously, India remained c oncerned about the United States' continued illegal 
disbursement of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its industry.  India, therefore, urged the 
United States to inform the DSB of the steps it pr oposed to take, to ensure full compliance and to 
submit implementation reports  in this dispute.  
42. The representative of the United States  said that as his country had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  With  respect to comments regarding further status WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 10  
 
  reports in this matter, as his delegation had alread y explained, the United States had taken all steps 
necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Those Members who had inscribed 
this matter on the agenda of the present meeting were, of course, free to do so, but the United States failed to see what purpose would be served by fu rther submission of status reports repeating the 
progress the United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. 
43. With respect to various assertions concerning CDSOA disbursements, his country continued 
to be surprised by the assertion that the United St ates would not have implemented the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations until the last CDSOA distributi on was made.  Of course, such questions were 
for panels to decide.  Finally, the United States regretted that Japan had decided to continue to 
suspend concessions and was perplexed at this decision.   Indeed, in the course of this dispute, Japan 
had made clear that its purpose in suspending co ncessions was to "induce compliance", a statement 
that had been repeated again at the present meeti ng.  Now that the United States had taken all steps 
necessary to comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations, his country failed to see how the 
continued suspension of concessions would further th at purpose.  In any event, the United States 
would be carefully reviewing the measures taken by  Japan.  As Members would recall, the DSB had 
only authorized the suspension of concessions or ot her obligations as provided in the Award of the 
Arbitrator. 
44. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
4. United States – Anti-dumping measure on shrimp from Ecuador 
(a) Statement by the United States 
45. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States, and invited the represe ntative of the United States to speak. 
46. The representative of the United States  said that his country was pleased to report that it had 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the dispute:  "United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador".  Th e United States and Ecuador had reached an 
agreement in this proceeding, under which the Unite d States had agreed not to contest Ecuador's claim 
that the calculation in this particular investigati on was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement.  The United States and Ecuador had further agreed to a reasonable period of 
time of six months from the adoption of the Panel Re port.  The reasonable period of time had expired 
on 20 August 2007.  The US Department of Commerce had recalculated the margins for the 
respondents, providing offsets for non-dumped compar isons.  The margins for the respondents were 
below de minimis levels.  In addition, the Department had recalculated the all-others rate, which was 
also below de minimis.  Therefore, the Department of Comme rce had revoked the order.  That 
revocation was effective 15 August 2007, prior to the expiry of the reasonable period of time in this 
dispute.   
47. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country wished to comment on the statement made 
by the United States in which it had informed the DS B of the actions taken in order to comply with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the case under consideration.  Ecuador thanked the US 
delegation in Geneva and the US authorities in Wash ington (DC) for their collaboration on this issue 
that had led to the revocation of the anti-dumping duty order against the importations of shrimp from 
Ecuador, within the period of time mutually agreed by  the parties to the dispute.  This case constituted 
an important precedent of collaboration between the parties and of prompt compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
48. The DSB took note  of the statements.   WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 11 
 
 
  5. United States – Sunset reviews of anti-dumpi ng measures on oil country tubular goods 
from Argentina 
(a) Statement by the United States 
49. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States, and invited the represe ntative of the United States to speak. 
50. The representative of the United States  said that his country was pleased to report that it had 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in the dispute:  "United States – Sunset 
Reviews of Anti-dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina".  Even before 
the conclusion of the Panel and the Appellate Body proceedings in this dispute, a separate sunset 
review had been taking place.  In that review, the US International Trade Commission had made a 
negative determination with respect to the likeli hood of recurrence or continuation of injury in 
connection with the second sunset review of OCTG from Argentina and from several other countries.  
As a result, on 22 June 2007, the Department of Commerce had published a notice revoking the anti-dumping duty order.  The effective date of the revocation was 25 July 2006. 
51. The representative of Argentina
 said that his country appreciated the information provided by 
the United States, and thanked the United States fo r the update before the DSB.  Argentina had 
received with satisfaction the news regarding the re vocation of the order by the US Department of 
Commerce (USDOC) in June 2007.  This was evid ent from the agreement signed by Argentina and 
the United States, in which both parties had agr eed on the suspension of the proceedings initiated 
under Article 22.6 of the DSU.  However, Argentin a had taken due note that just a couple of weeks 
ago, the US domestic industry had decided to appeal  before the Court of International Trade (CIT), 
the decision by the US International Trade Commissi on (USITC) that had led to the revocation of the 
order.  Argentina had not arrived ne ither effortlessly nor by chance at the present situation.  This had 
been – and still was – a very important case for Argentina, and hence, Argentina was closely 
following these new circumstances, with the expecta tion that the USITC decision – and the revocation 
of the order – would be sustained by the US Court.   
52. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
6. United States – Anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from 
Mexico 
(a) Statement by the United States 
53. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States, and invited the represe ntative of the United States to speak. 
54. The representative of the United States  said that, similar to the discussion the DSB had just 
had under item 5 of the agenda of the present meeti ng, his country was pleased to report that it had 
also implemented the DSB's recommendations and ru lings in the dispute:  "United States – Anti-
dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCT G) from Mexico".  He wished to reiterate 
some of that information for the benefit of all Memb ers.  Even before the conclusion of the panel and 
the Appellate Body proceedings in this dispute, a separate sunset review had been taking place.  In 
that review, the US International Trade Commissi on had made a negative dete rmination with respect 
to the likelihood of recurrence or continuation of injury in connection with the second sunset review of OCTG from Mexico and from several other c ountries.  As a result, on 22 June 2007, the 
Department of Commerce had published a notice revoki ng the anti-dumping duty order.  The effective 
date of the revocation was 25 July 2006. WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 12  
 
  55. The representative of Mexico
 said that his delegation had noted the statement made by the 
United States and welcomed the news announced by  the United States regarding the revocation of the 
order which was prejudicial to Mexico.  His country  wished to express its satisfaction and hoped that 
this decision would remain firmly in place.  Hi s country understood that the US industry had not 
appealed against the ITC decision in  this case and hoped that this put an end to the dispute between 
Mexico and the United States on oil tubular goods from Mexico. 
56. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
7. China – Certain measures granting refunds, red uctions or exemptions from taxes and 
other payments 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS358/13) 
 
(b) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico (WT/DS359/13) 
 57. The Chairman
 proposed that the two sub-items to whic h he had just referred be considered 
together.  He recalled that the DSB had consider ed these matters at its meeting on 24 July 2007 and 
had agreed to revert to them.  He then drew attention to the communication from the United States 
contained in document WT/DS358/13 and invited th e representative of the United States to speak. 
58. The representative of the United States  said that, as discussed at the previous regularly 
scheduled DSB meeting, his country was concerne d about a series of measures maintained by China 
that appeared to constitute subsidies prohibite d under WTO rules.  Ch ina offered tax refunds, 
reductions, and exemptions that appeared to be c ontingent on a firm's use of domestic over imported 
products, or on a firm's export performance.  Although  the United States continued to prefer to reach a 
mutually agreed solution to this dispute, unfortuna tely to-date it had not been able to do so.  The 
United States, therefore, renewed its request that th e DSB establish a panel to resolve this dispute.  
The United States further requested that a single pane l be established to examine the US and Mexican 
complaints in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
59. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS359/13 and invited the repr esentative of Mexico to speak. 
60. The representative of Mexico  said that his country, once again, agreed with the comments 
made by the United States regarding the subsidi es granted by China and, like the United States, 
Mexico regretted the need to have to, once again, request the establishment of a panel.  Furthermore, 
Mexico reiterated the request made by the United Stat es that a single panel be established, pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, to examine both complaints .  Finally, as Mexico had already stated at the 
previous DSB meeting, despite its request for the establishment of a panel, Mexico would seek the 
way to work together with China to find a negotiated solution to solve this dispute. 
61. The representative of China  said that his country had fully elaborated its position regarding 
this matter at the 24 July DSB meeting and would not repeat each point at the present meeting.  
Briefly, it was very disappointing and deeply regrettable that the United States and Mexico had 
pursued this matter further by requesting the estab lishment of the panel for a second time despite the 
progress that had been achieved through the cons ultations.  China had s hown good faith to find a 
positive solution to this dispute throughout such consultations and was still ready to do so in a 
reciprocal way with the complainants.  China took no te of the statements of the complaints, and noted 
the willingness of the parties to the disputes to c ontinue with their consultations.  In the panel 
proceedings, China would defend its position and inte rests and remained confident that relevant 
measures of China were consistent with its WTO obligations.  China remained open to the decision  WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 13 
 
 
  that the DSB establish a single panel to examine the two complaints, in accordance with Article 9.1 of 
the DSU.  
62. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a single panel, pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, with standard terms of  reference, to examine the complaint by the 
United States contained in WT/DS358/13 and the complaint by Mexico contained in WT/DS359/13. 
63. The representatives of Australia , Canada , Chile , Chinese Taipei , the European Communities , 
Japan  and Turkey  reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
8. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS362/7) 
64. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS362/7, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
65. The representative of the United States  said that his country was concerned that levels of 
intellectual property piracy in China remained  unacceptably high, and that the protection and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights in Chin a remained insufficient.   The United States and 
China had been discussing these matters bilaterall y for quite some time.  The United States 
recognized that China had made the protection of in tellectual property rights a priority, and that it had 
taken active steps to improve IPR protection and enforcement.  However, the United States was 
concerned that several aspects of the Chinese le gal regime actually hindered IPR protection and 
enforcement and raised WTO concerns.  Three of th ose concerns were before the DSB at the present 
meeting.  
66. First, China's criminal law contained thresholds that must be met in order to start a criminal 
prosecution or obtain a criminal conviction for copyright piracy or trademark counterfeiting.  Because of these thresholds, many acts of trademark counterfe iting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale 
appeared not to be subject to criminal procedures and penalties in China.  For example, China had set 
one of its thresholds for prosecution of criminal copyright infringement at 500 infringing copies.  The 
United States found it difficult to understand, howeve r, why China had chosen to tie the hands of its 
prosecutors and prevent its authorities from prosecu ting a copyright pirate who was caught with only 
499 copies of an infringing product. 
67. Second, China's customs rules described how the Chinese customs authorities were to handle 
IPR-infringing goods that they had confiscated at  the border.  If the infringing features could be 
removed, the authorities appeared to be required to release such goods into the regular channels of 
commerce.  It was difficult to see, however, how such rules created an effective deterrent to 
infringement or to trade in counterfeit merchandise. 
68. Third, China appeared to deny the protection of  its copyright law to works that had not been 
authorized for publication or distribution in China.  A right holder who did not yet have authorization to publish or distribute appeared to lack the abilit y to complain about copyright infringement while he 
was waiting.  In other words, during that period, copyright holders were unable to use either civil or 
criminal remedies under China's intellectual property laws to protect their valuable new works from a 
flood of pirated copies that might find their way onto the Chinese market.  The United States found it difficult to reconcile making legitimate right hol ders wait for legal protection under China's 
intellectual property laws with China's commitments under the WTO. WT/DSB/M/238 
Page 14  
 
  69. With respect to all three of these issues, China' s measures appeared to be inconsistent with 
various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  The US  panel request described these matters in greater 
detail.  And, as his delegation had mentioned a few moments ago, the United States had discussed 
these issues extensively with China, including in the consultations that  had been held in June.  While 
those consultations had provided some helpful clarifi cations, regrettably, they had not resolved this 
dispute.  The United States, therefore, requested that the DSB establish a panel at the present meeting 
to examine the matters set forth in the US panel request. 
70. The representative of China
 said that it was regrettable fo r his country to see that the 
United States had chosen to request the establishment of a panel in spite of China's efforts to settle 
this dispute through consultations.  China had shown great sincerity in  the past rounds of consultation 
and was willing to settle this disput e through further consultations in a mutually satisfactory manner.  
China always took its commitments very seriously, including those on IPR.  During the past 20 years, China had set up a comprehensive legal system of IPR protection while joining almost each different IPR-related international convention or treaty.  And China consistently  spared no efforts to enforce its 
IPR legislation with great success acknowledged by the international community.  It was particularly 
worth mentioning that, in order to build up an innovative country, recently China incorporated IPR 
protection as an integral part into its National St rategy of Development.  Having said that, China 
strongly believed that those measures pertinent to this  dispute were consistent with WTO rules.  And 
China was opposed to the attempt of any Member  to impose on developing Members through dispute 
settlement any extra obligation that would go beyond what had been provided by the TRIPS 
Agreement.  Therefore, China was not in a positio n to agree to the establis hment of a panel, as 
requested by the United States.  
71. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
9. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/357) 
72. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB /W/357, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-g overnmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of th e DSU.  Unless there was any obj ection, he wished to propose that 
the DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/357. 
73. The DSB so agreed . 
74. The Chairman  said that, in connection with this ag enda item, he wished to thank those 
delegations who had complied with  his announcement of 24 April regarding the need to update the 
indicative list of governmental and non-government al panelists, pursuant to the proposals for the 
administration of the indicative list of panelists, approved by the DSB on 31 May 1995.  It was his 
understanding that the Secretariat would be soon i ssuing a new updated and consolidated list based on 
the information provided by delegations thus far.  
75. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
10. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
76. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that as he had announced at the outset 
of the meeting, he wished to say a few words about the selection process for Appellate Body members to give delegations an update of the situation thus far in light of the 31 August deadline for 
nominations of candidates, which had been agreed  by the DSB at its meeting on 20 June 2007.  He  WT/DSB/M/238 
 Page 15 
 
 
  further stated that currently nominations of candidates had been received from the following 
countries:  Pakistan (nomination circulated as job no. 5318);  China (nomination circulated as job. no. 6047), the Philippines (nomination circulated as job no. 6080), Japan (nomination circulated as 
job no. 6093), Korea (nomination circulated as job no. 6116) and Benin (nomination circulated as job 
no. 6132.)  He wished to take the opportunity to thank those delegations  who had submitted their 
candidates thus far.  Of course, the deadline w as not over yet and it was his understanding that more 
nominations of candidates were still expected to co me.  In accordance with the agreed procedures, the 
Selection Committee would shortly begin its work.  To  this effect, the first meeting of the Selection 
Committee would take place on 3 September in order to discuss, inter alia , organizational matters, 
including a time-table for interviewing of candidat es and for hearing views of delegations.  Once all 
the details were finalized by the Selection Comm ittee, he would duly inform  delegations about the 
agreed time-table for the Committee's work and woul d ask the Secretariat to assist him in making the 
necessary arrangements in this regard.  Finally, he recalled that the aim was to come up with a 
recommendation regarding the four upcoming positions  in the Appellate Body by no later than 
5 November so that the final decision could be  made by the DSB at its regular meeting on 
19 November. 
77. The DSB took note
 of the statement. 
 
__________